I'm not sure if this is a limitation, a bug or just bad use of GSON. I need to have a hierarchy of Kotlin objects (parent with various subtypes) and I need to deserialize them with GSON. The deserialized object has correct subtype but its field enumField is actually null.
First I thought this is because the field is passed to the "super" constructor but then I found out that "super" works well for string, just enum is broken.
See this example:
import com.google.gson.Gson
import com.google.gson.GsonBuilder
import com.google.gson.typeadapters.RuntimeTypeAdapterFactory
open class Parent(val stringField: String,
val enumField: EnumField) {
enum class EnumField {
SUBTYPE1,
SUBTYPE2,
SUBTYPE3
}
}
class Subtype1() : Parent("s1", EnumField.SUBTYPE1)
class Subtype2(stringField: String) : Parent(stringField, EnumField.SUBTYPE2)
class Subtype3(stringField: String, type: EnumField) : Parent(stringField, type)
val subtypeRAF = RuntimeTypeAdapterFactory.of(Parent::class.java, "enumField")
.registerSubtype(Subtype1::class.java, Parent.EnumField.SUBTYPE1.name)
.registerSubtype(Subtype2::class.java, Parent.EnumField.SUBTYPE2.name)
.registerSubtype(Subtype3::class.java, Parent.EnumField.SUBTYPE3.name)
fun main() {
val gson = GsonBuilder()
.registerTypeAdapterFactory(subtypeRAF)
.create()
serializeAndDeserialize(gson, Subtype1()) // this works (but not suitable)
serializeAndDeserialize(gson, Subtype2("s2")) // broken
serializeAndDeserialize(gson, Subtype3("s3", Parent.EnumField.SUBTYPE3)) // broken
}
private fun serializeAndDeserialize(gson: Gson, obj: Parent) {
println("-----------------------------------------")
val json = gson.toJson(obj)
println(json)
val obj = gson.fromJson(json, Parent::class.java)
println("stringField=${obj.stringField}, enumField=${obj.enumField}")
}
Any ideas how to achieve to deserialization of enumField?
(deps: com.google.code.gson:gson:2.8.5, org.danilopianini:gson-extras:0.2.1)
P.S.: Note that I have to use RuntimeAdapterFactory because I have subtypes with different set of fields (I did not do it in the example so it is easier to understand).
Gson requires constructors without arguments to work properly (see deep-dive into Gson code below). Gson constructs raw objects and then use reflection to populate fields with values.
So if you just add some argument-less dummy constructors to your classes that miss them, like this:
class Subtype1() : Parent("s1", EnumField.SUBTYPE1)
class Subtype2(stringField: String) : Parent(stringField, EnumField.SUBTYPE2) {
constructor() : this("")
}
class Subtype3(stringField: String, type: EnumField) : Parent(stringField, type) {
constructor() : this("", EnumField.SUBTYPE3)
}
you will get the expected output:
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s1","enumField":"SUBTYPE1"}
stringField=s1, enumField=SUBTYPE1
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s2","enumField":"SUBTYPE2"}
stringField=s2, enumField=SUBTYPE2
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s3","enumField":"SUBTYPE3"}
stringField=s3, enumField=SUBTYPE3
Gson deep-dive
If you want to investigate the internals of Gson, a tip is to add an init { } block to Subtype1 since it works and then set a breakpoint there. After it is hit you can move up the call stack, step through code, set more breakpoints etc, to reveal the details of how Gson constructs objects.
By using this method, you can find the Gson internal class com.google.gson.internal.ConstructorConstructor and its method newDefaultConstructor(Class<? super T>) that has code like this (I have simplified for brevity):
final Constructor<? super T> constructor = rawType.getDeclaredConstructor(); // rawType is e.g. 'class Subtype3'
Object[] args = null;
return (T) constructor.newInstance(args);
i.e. it tries to construct an object via a constructor without arguments. In your case for Subtype2 and Subtype3, the code will result in a caught exception:
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) { // java.lang.NoSuchMethodException: Subtype3.<init>()
return null; // set breakpoint here to see
}
i.e. your original code fails since Gson can't find constructors without arguments for Subtype2 and Subtype3.
In simple cases, the problem with missing argument-less constructors is worked around with the newUnsafeAllocator(Type, final Class<? super T>)-method in ConstructorConstructor, but with RuntimeTypeAdapterFactory that does not work correctly.
I may be missing something in what you're trying to achieve, but is it necessary to use the RuntimeTypeAdapterFactory? If we take out the line where we register that in the Gson builder, so that it reads
val gson = GsonBuilder()
.create()
Then the output returns the enum we would expect, which looks to be serialising / deserialising correctly. I.e. the output is:
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s1","enumField":"SUBTYPE1"}
stringField=s1, enumField=SUBTYPE1
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s2","enumField":"SUBTYPE2"}
stringField=s2, enumField=SUBTYPE2
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s3","enumField":"SUBTYPE3"}
stringField=s3, enumField=SUBTYPE3
It also may be an idea to implement Serializable in Parent. i.e.
open class Parent(val stringField: String, val enumField: EnumField) : Serializable {
enum class EnumField {
SUBTYPE1,
SUBTYPE2,
SUBTYPE3
}
}
Try adding #SerializedName annotation to each enum.
enum class EnumField {
#SerializedName("subtype1")
SUBTYPE1,
#SerializedName("subtype2")
SUBTYPE2,
#SerializedName("subtype3")
SUBTYPE3
}
Related
Using Kotlin serialization, I would like to serialize and deserialize (to JSON) a generic data class with type parameter from a sealed hierarchy. However, I get a runtime exception.
To reproduce the issue:
import kotlinx.serialization.*
import kotlin.test.Test
import kotlin.test.assertEquals
/// The sealed hierarchy used a generic type parameters:
#Serializable
sealed interface Coded {
val description: String
}
#Serializable
#SerialName("CodeOA")
object CodeOA: Coded {
override val description: String = "Code Object OA"
}
#Serializable
#SerialName("CodeOB")
object CodeOB: Coded {
override val description: String = "Code Object OB"
}
/// Simplified class hierarchy
#Serializable
sealed interface NumberedData {
val number: Int
}
#Serializable
#SerialName("CodedData")
data class CodedData<out C : Coded> (
override val number: Int,
val info: String,
val code: C
): NumberedData
internal class GenericSerializerTest {
#Test
fun `polymorphically serialize and deserialize a CodedData instance`() {
val codedData: NumberedData = CodedData(
number = 42,
info = "Some test",
code = CodeOB
)
val codedDataJson = Json.encodeToString(codedData)
val codedDataDeserialized = Json.decodeFromString<NumberedData>(codedDataJson)
assertEquals(codedData, codedDataDeserialized)
}
}
Running the test results in the following runtime exception:
kotlinx.serialization.SerializationException: Class 'CodeOB' is not registered for polymorphic serialization in the scope of 'Coded'.
Mark the base class as 'sealed' or register the serializer explicitly.
This error message does not make sense to me, as both hierarchies are sealed and marked as #Serializable.
I don't understand the root cause of the problem - do I need to explicitly register one of the plugin-generated serializers? Or do I need to roll my own serializer? Why would that be the case?
I am using Kotlin 1.7.20 with kotlinx.serialization 1.4.1
Disclaimer: I do not consider my solution to be very statisfying, but I cannot find a better way for now.
KotlinX serialization documentation about sealed classes states (emphasis mine):
you must ensure that the compile-time type of the serialized object is a polymorphic one, not a concrete one.
In the following example of the doc, we see that serializing child class instead of parent class prevent it to be deserialized using parent (polymorphic) type.
In your case, you have nested polymorphic types, so this is even more complicated I think. To make serialization and deserialization work, then, I've tried multiple things, and finally, the only way I've found to make it work is to:
Remove generic on CodedData (to be sure that code attribute is interpreted in a polymorphic way:
#Serializable
#SerialName("CodedData")
data class CodedData (
override val number: Int,
val info: String,
val code: Coded
): NumberedData
Cast coded data object to NumberedData when encoding, to ensure polymorphism is triggered:
Json.encodeToString<NumberedData>(codedData)
Tested using a little main program based on your own unit test:
fun main() {
val codedData = CodedData(
number = 42,
info = "Some test",
code = CodeOB
)
val json = Json.encodeToString<NumberedData>(codedData)
println(
"""
ENCODED:
--------
$json
""".trimIndent()
)
val decoded = Json.decodeFromString<NumberedData>(json)
println(
"""
DECODED:
--------
$decoded
""".trimIndent()
)
}
It prints:
ENCODED:
--------
{"type":"CodedData","number":42,"info":"Some test","code":{"type":"CodeOB"}}
DECODED:
--------
CodedData(number=42, info=Some test, code=CodeOB(description = Code Object OB))
I have a simple data class being returned from a REST endpoint.
data class SummarizedReturn(
val NET_CASH_FLOW: BigDecimal,
val ROI_PERCENTAGE: BigDecimal
)
When it is returned, the object looks like this:
{
summarizedReturn: {
net_CASH_FLOW: -194703.12028723184,
roi_PERCENTAGE: -35,
}
}
This is not what I need. I need all letters to be capitalized. So I added the JsonProperty annotation
data class SummarizedReturn(
#JsonProperty("NET_CASH_FLOW")
val NET_CASH_FLOW: BigDecimal,
#JsonProperty("ROI_PERCENTAGE")
val ROI_PERCENTAGE: BigDecimal,
)
This did not change anything. I still get the result the same as above.
I then changed the property names and kept the annotation
data class SummarizedReturn(
#JsonProperty("NET_CASH_FLOW")
val netCashFlow: BigDecimal,
#JsonProperty("ROI_PERCENTAGE")
val roiPercentage: BigDecimal,
)
and that returned what I wanted.
{
summarizedReturn: {
NET_CASH_FLOW: -194703.12028723184,
ROI_PERCENTAGE: -35,
}
}
Why did the annotation not work on the initial version of the class? How can I keep my property names all capitalized and have the Jackson value to be the same?
There is an issue with interoperability of Java annotations in Kotlin code. You can register Jackson's Kotlin module to get rid of this problems:
import com.fasterxml.jackson.module.kotlin.jacksonObjectMapper
fun main() {
val mapper = jacksonObjectMapper() // <= shortcut to ObjectMapper().registerKotlinModule()
println(mapper.writeValueAsString(SummarizedReturn(
BigDecimal("-194703.12028723184"),
BigDecimal("-35"))))
}
Output:
{"NET_CASH_FLOW":-194703.12028723184,"ROI_PERCENTAGE":-35}
This will also require you to add com.fasterxml.jackson.module:jackson-module-kotlin to your dependencies.
PS: Alternatively you can solve it by using slightly different target:
#JsonPropery => #get:JsonPropery (or field:#JsonPropery in case this data class will also be used for deserialization)
I have the following code setup;
abstract class GenericQuestionEditor() {
protected abstract var data: GenericQuestionData
}
but then when I create EditorSimple() it throws an error when I try to set data to DataSimple(), why?
class EditorSimple(): GenericQuestionEditor() {
override var data = DataSimple()
}
my GenericQeustionData and DataSimple() are setup like this;
abstract class GenericQuestionData {}
class DataSimple: GenericQuestionData() {}
it doesn't complain if I create this function in GenericQuestionEditor()
fun test() {
data = DataSimple()
}
Why do I get an error on data in EditorSimple()? It should recognize it as a subtype and it should be allowed as I understand.
I feel like the answer is found in the kotlin documentation but i'm not sure how to configure it in this case since they are not passed values or part of a collection.
You need to specify the type explicitly:
class EditorSimple(): GenericQuestionEditor() {
override var data: GenericQuestionData = DataSimple()
}
Without the type annotation, the type of data would be inferred to be DataSimple, which doesn't match the type of its super class' data. Even though the types are related, you can't override writable a property with a subtype. Imagine if I did:
class SomeOtherData: GenericQuestionData()
val editor: GenericQuestionEditor = EditorSimple()
editor.data = SomeOtherData() // data is of type GenericQuestionData, so I should be able to do this
But, editor actually has a EditorSimple, which can only store DataSimple objects in data!
I'm in the process of trying to port some code I wrote in Java over to Kotlin and I'm struggling mightily with some issues around generics. I quite commonly use a factory pattern in Java to return an instance of a generic interface that I want to call for a given type.
In Java I had this contract:
public Message<T extends Action> {
private List<T> actions;
..some other properties
}
And this interface:
public interface MessageConverter<T extends Action, M extends BaseModel> {
List<M> convertMessage(Message<T> message);
DataType getDataType();
}
And lastly this factory:
public class MessageConverterFactory {
//This gets populated via DI
private Map<DataType, MessageConverter> converterMap;
public <T extends Action, M extends BaseModel> MessageConverter<T, M> getMessageConverter(DataType dataType) {
return converterMap.get(dataType);
}
}
With all that in place, I was able to do things like this:
Message<T> message = mapper.readValue(messageString, type);
MessageConverter<T, M> messageConverter = messageConverterFactory.getMessageConverter(dataType);
List<M> dataModels = messageConverter.convertMessage(message);
I understand that I was abusing raw generic types in Java to an extent to make this happen, but I assumed there would be some way to still do a generic factory pattern like this.
However, no matter with I try with generic variance, star projections, etc. I cannot get Kotlin to accept any version of this code. The closest I got was down to the invocation of the generic converter's convertMessage call. It was failing because I was using star projections and attempting to restrict the type of T, but that was leading to the compiler thinking convertMessage accepts Message<Nothing>.
Is code like this possible in Kotlin? Or is there a similar alternative approach I should be using instead?
Thanks,
Jeff
The literal conversion of this to Kotlin is pretty simple, and the Java-to-Kotlin converter built in to IDEA would spit something like this out almost directly, given the equivalent Java code:
class Message<T: Action> {
private val actions: List<T> = TODO()
...
}
interface MessageConverter<T: Action, out M: BaseModel> {
fun convertMessage(message: Message<T>): List<M>
val dataType: DataType
}
class MessageConverterFactory(val converterMap: Map<DataType, MessageConverter<*, *>>) {
fun <T: Action, M: BaseModel> getMessageConverter(dataType: DataType): MessageConverter<T, M> {
return converterMap[dataType] as MessageConverter<T, M>
}
}
Note, the cast in getMessageConverter -- your Java code is doing the equivalent, without being explicit about it -- I believe the compiler would even spit out a warning about an unchecked assignment.
An alternative in Kotlin is to use an inline function with reified types to return the appropriate converter. For example, something like this:
inline fun <reified T: Action, reified M: BaseModel> converterOf(): MessageConverter<T, M> = when {
T::class == FooAction::class, M::class == BarModel::class -> TODO()
else -> error("No converter available for type ${T::class.simpleName} to ${M::class.simpleName}")
}
I have an annotation that requires defaultValue to be compile-time constant. I take defaultValue from enum below:
enum class RaceType {
MARATHON,
SPRINT;
companion object {
fun apply(type: RaceType): RaceDto {
return when (type) {
MARATHON -> MarathonDto()
SPRINT -> SprintDto()
}
}
}
}
My dtos are the following:
interface RaceDto {
}
data class MarathonDto: RaceDto
data class SprintDto: RaceDto
when I use annotation #QraphQLArgument(defaultValue = RaceType.SPRINT.name) Kotlin requires RaceType.SPRINT.name to be compile-time constant.
Annotation implementation itself:
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.PARAMETER})
public #interface GraphQLArgument {
String NONE = "\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\ue000\ue001\ue002\n\t\t\t\t\n";
String NULL = "\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\ue000\ue001\ue002\ue003\n\t\t\t\t\n";
String name();
String description() default "";
String defaultValue() default "\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\ue000\ue001\ue002\n\t\t\t\t\n";
Class<? extends DefaultValueProvider> defaultValueProvider() default JsonDefaultValueProvider.class;
}
I looked through similar questions but don't see a way how it can be resolved. I also found article related to the topic but nothing worked so far.
Side note: I cannot change annotation since it is from the library and I cannot change the library as well.
To summarize, is there a way to make from enum compile-time constant in Kotlin to use in an annotation?
is there a way to make from enum compile-time constant in Kotlin to use in an annotation?
No, because formally enums aren't compile-time constants in Java.
However please consider the sealed classes:
sealed class RaceType {
object MARATHON: RaceType() {
const val name = "MARATHON" // copy-paste is required here until https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-16304
}
object SPRINT: RaceType()
companion object {
fun apply(type: RaceType): RaceDto {
return when (type) { // the check is in compile time, because of sealed class
MARATHON -> MarathonDto()
SPRINT -> SprintDto()
}
}
}
}
A little part of copy-paste is still required. Please vote on kotlin compiler bug or follow this thread.
However, as I understand, this doesn't solve your issue with #QraphQLArgument(defaultValue = RaceType.SPRINT.name) unfortunately, because the name of class is not the same with value. In the other words, with sealed classes you need to write code to convert input strings to them.